In order to present the unlimited space originally Elementary:

1. variety (homogeneous) сompleted - enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systematically manifested the essence/

2. heterogeneous completed - enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element - the Most High and Almighty God - with open exhibited systemic nature.

Not hard to imagine that even at the lowest possible deployment intangible components the nature of God - the Spirit of God - for the level of the original downwardly directed continuous deployment the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of SIMPLE and COMPLEX /i.e.. their decay occurs due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy components of their intangible essences/, as the maximum possible heterogeneous nature of God to the minimum possible number of cell uniformity (№1h) and God on the basis of the material components of the minimum possible №1 deploys heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerical element uniformity (№2H). The process of clotting №2H begins at a certain point in time God begins at the end of its deployment. Curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds №1H - God's potential for transformation into a №1H in №2H and №1H in №2H limitless!

The vastly longer and more mind-boggling rotation of the Galaxy (of which our Solar System but a single star) has never even been observed once and never measured at all. Extrapolating its rotation from barely detectable Galactic parallax or estimates of the speed of the Sun results in estimates for our one star alone, that have only about 20% accuracy.

That was first attempted only a few decades, about 0.000001% of the entire cycle. No voice on Earth that suggests it's been around the Galaxy is worth listening to.

It is far more likely, that the Universe never began at all. It is in fact more likely that it never had any kind of beginning as we know it. and never will have an end.

Essentially nothing of that yet is yet known, compared with what the truth must be. It is a time-domain realm of which everyone on Earth is completely ignorant. It is is so prolonged and large, the human species could evolve many more times into new variations on form before it ever becomes evident how the universe came into existence-if it ever had a beginning at all.

The entire Earth and its star the Sun could disappear - stars eventually do - and yet the universe goes on and on Perhaps it existed so far into the past that it had no beginning as we know it. It existed longer than knowledge itself has existed. It may never cease to exist. The Universe is probably eternal.

It's about time for a new word-a word that means "cannot be
distinguished from eternity." It would be one of those words that are
rarely used by persons without a couple of Saturns under their belt.
After all, the new goal in longevity is Neptune-already there are people who have lived more than half of that planet's 165 years..

From the evidence that we do not see things coming into existence from nothing we can conclude only that things do not come into existence from nothing, and that is all. Adding the qualifier without a cause is misleading, it is just as valid to add the qualifier with a cause, and there seems to be no reason to add either. We can see this by rewording the First Premise to Nothing begins to exist without a cause. This is supported by experience that things do not pop into existence. However, we may also examine the premise Nothing begins to exist with a cause and see that this is also supported by the same experience that nothing pops into existence. Our experience is that nothing pops into existence without a cause, and nothing pops into existence with a cause, i.e. nothing pops into existence at all.

The premise ‘Whatever begins to exist requires a cause' is obviously false, from the evidence that is put forward to demonstrate its truthfulness. The evidence supporting the First Premise is that we do not see things coming into existence from nothing and that the premise that Nothing comes from nothing is intuitively correct. However, the statement Everything that comes into existence … presumes that some things can come into existence from nothing, which is a direct contradiction of premise that Nothing comes from nothing and our experience that this is true. Adding the qualifying clause without a cause does not change that contradiction.

Clifton's most recent Kalam debunking is here. This addresses William Lane Craig's approach using his own philosophical logic against him. You'll find other elements of Kalam refuted at Clifton's YouTube channel. You can find several disproofs from others by just searching at YouTube for 'Kalam.'

"No one, not even Einstein who tried for decades to disprove it, has come up with a theory or evidence that puts a cause behind the random quantum mechanical events. You can choose not to accept this and instead take it on faith that everything has a cause based upon the metaphysics of a 14th century philosopher."
With regards to quantum mechanics and causality, I'd like to point out that I think you may have missed the point the author was attempting to make. Yes, it is true that thus far there is no evidence for any cause or set of causes of quantum mechanical events, and I don't think that this has any bearing on what the author was pointing out. He was making the point that, often times, a major criterion atheists have for demonstrating God's existence is showing a true case of something coming from nothing. This, the atheist is likely to say, would be truly supernatural, and would demonstrate a divine being with supernatural powers. So, if we ultimately show that the universe does not have some prior cause, or an infinite regress of prior causes, then we have shown the universe to be something that has come from nothing. If the universe has come from nothing, it does not have a natural origin. If the universe does not have a natural origin, then it necessarily has a supernatural origin. This would satisfy the atheist's request for the demonstration of a true case of something coming from nothing, and thus indicating a supernatural force.

So, yes you're right - there is no yet known cause of quantum mechanical events. Perhaps (though I have no clue, I have little training in physics) we may some day find one, but if not, and it really turns out that the universe simply popped into existence, then that will not disprove the existence of God. It will actually demonstrate a non-natural (and to my mind, thus supernatural) force.
This is hardly 14th century philosophy.

"How many diseases has Catholicism eliminated?"

While I know you're attempting to respond, in part, to VelikaBuna, this is a very poor question. The more comprehensive question would be "has Catholicism contributed to the elimination of any disease?" (because "atheism" hasn't directly caused elimination/combat of - but it has contributed in various ways) and the answer would be a very obvious "yes", unless one is ignorant, willfully or otherwise, to it's medical/scientific contributions.

Perhaps most atheists believe the forces and "stuff" of nature simply exist, and exist eternally -- just like Christians believe God simply exists, and exists eternally. The difference is we can be relatively sure nature exists in the here and now.

" And again, this doesn't quite describe the Church's stance on faith" - actually the stance is irrelevant. What is actually used by believers in practise is what is relevant, and in that aspect I think you'll find myself correct. What is described as the Church's stance on faith doesn't given enough reason to believe either, so believing on such a basis would be irrational and hence against the Church's stance.

Right, but we've bounced away from the epistemological question, embedded in history. And again, this doesn't quite describe the Church's stance on faith, which always comes back to Fides et Ratio and a model of mutual illumination.

But I really do recommend Taylor's essay if you're interested in the history of epistemology. (I've been meaning to read his best-known work "Sources of the Self.") "Metaphysical naturalism" wasn't simply plucked out of Platonic heaven one day - it has an organic history, and that history is inextricably linked with the epistemological turn. And to get back to the original point, key passages in the Summa about univocity/analogy and God's existence/essence are I.2 and I.13.5. You can have the last word, if you want it. Peace Prime!

Of course Kaalam is deductive; it's just a basic (and rather trivial syllogism). The problem is that it's of no actual value until P1 and P2 are shown to be true. And you haven't done that. WLC hasn't done that. No one has done that.

And if you claim that acausal quantum fluctuations have an explanation, then you demonstrate you know nothing of quantum theory; and if you claim the supernatural is involved, then you've begged the question - a logical fallacy, which shows you've abandoned logic.

P1 has not been shown to be true. P2 has not been shown to be true. Our available evidence including quantum theory indicates that P1 probably isn't true.